The fundemental flaw in the comparison of the various Internet and Usenet based resources is that they are a communications exchanges between various sources and sinks of information, not a single source. In this they are more akin to the phone network than a TV station or a major BBS such as CompuServe or AOL. I'm quite sure that every parent has a long list of phone numbers s?he would prefer h(is|er) children would not call, starting off with bars, escort services, etc. This is not a justification for a pre hoc screening of every phone conversation by censors, nor is it a reason to establish various restricted classes of service for telephones. This is even more clear in the case of Internet/Usenet resources, where each link is essentially a contractual relationship between the computer owners involved. If you want to establish a site that censors/restricts newsgroups, limits ftp and telnet access, etc, that's just fine, but it is no reason to restrict contractual relationships that don't involve you. If you don't want to connect to a site that refuses to abide by your restrictions, that's your call. OTOH, don't expect the world to knock down your door asking for censored newsfeeds, and don't think you have some God-given right to insist that two sites independent of your own abide by your restrictions. In the case of the major backbone providers, eg uunet and psi, the situation is a bit different. These sites have a disproportionate control of what passes between systems, and any attempt on their part to restrict content would be disastorous. --Paul